Certainly find some links if you can.
FRP has proven over the years to be very tough to bond to. Most FRPs are epoxy based polymers, but it still takes a pretty rough FRP surface to provide enough for the epoxy to grab.
I myself love the glass over foam method, but it is extremely labor intensive compared too a composite core panel![]()
The carpet roller treatment keyed the adhesive into the foam quite well. I'm encouraged by that.
https://www.swaylocks.com/forums/xpsglassingdelamination
http://forum.surfer.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2145290
http://shedtech.blogspot.com/2014/12/
Pretty sure the FG skins are using polyester resin and gelcoat rather than epoxy.
Id be interested in comparing your urethane with an actual panel adhesive that Epic Resins carries.
Ad also be interested in their explanation as to why they suggested this potting urethane instead of an actual panel adhesive, that they also carry.
I think moisture cured is the easiest to work with so thats what I use. Personally the set time for epoxy is the turn off for me.


You made some good points about the XPS. There is a reason 99% of all expedition trucks (and commercial bodies) are constructed with the PU foam core.
Hard to tell just by looking.Isn't this XPS?
The advantages of Polyurethane foam (PU) are that it can be molded. And it has better heat resistance and is more porous than XPS. The density of molded PU is not uniform, being more dense at the surface -- a disadvantage if you over sand. PU also soaks up water.You made some good points about the XPS. There is a reason 99% of all expedition trucks (and commercial bodies) are constructed with the PU foam core.
Another option to gain maximum strength would be a PP honeycomb core, but you would certainly compromise the insulation value.
I believe most private people use the XPS because it's easy to find. Where PU foam is more of a challenge to get your hands on.